It seems at the moment people like watches that have been well used and not polished and had parts replaced etc. Personally I find this odd as I like my watches to be pristine and come service time I’ll get my case and bracelet brought back to new. Mine are only 5 years old though. Am I missing something here? Why do people like well used old subs and the like? I would prefer a pristine 15-20 year old watch than one that has never been refinished.
Stu
I guess people like watches that they know have a story to them,the scuffs etc add abit of a charm to the watch especially on the vintage watches. Im abit like you and Like my watches to be mint but I can appreciate the wear and tear on the older models i.e. The faded bezels on the vintage Pepsi gmts
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
If you have your watches polished every five years you may find the case gets worn down each time to remove all the scuff marks. You often see watches described as having ‘fat lugs’ etc meaning the opposite is true. Depends how sharp the edges you want on your watch in 20 years time. It depends on the watch.
“Each to their own”, as as they say.
20 years and 12 countries working in the mining industry. Wrist-deep in 5hit, slurry and pongy Chems. Daily beater has lots of stories to tell but worn well?
Straps last a couple of years max but nothing an old electric tooth brush and some Fairy won’t clean up
Last edited by Guycord; 26th May 2018 at 12:12.
It's mostly a Rolex thing, particularly Rolex Subs.
I don`t understand it either, but like a snowball rolling down hill it's a trend that's gathered momentum.
The point about removing metal's valid, but if the work's done carefully the amount removed is minimal and you'd never know any different. When a scratch is examined under magnification it becomes clear that the metal has ploughed up, some of the 'depth' of the scratch is due to metal standing proud of the surface.
All this guff about watches having a 'story' is rubbish in my eyes, I always wonder about the history but I don`t need to se scratches and scrapes to enhance my curiosity, to me the cosmetic blemishes add nothing, they only detract. Light aging of a dial and hands is OK, scratches and scrapes in the case aren't.
There have been plenty of badly refinished watches around in the past, with what I term the 'melting chocolate' look where the edges have been completely lost. I think this has lead to the current backlash against refinishing.
Paul
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 26th May 2018 at 12:10.
If you want a vintage watch, particularly a Submariner you could get an old one, that's had a new dial, hands, bracelet, bezel, insert, movement service and it'll look like new. But then you may as well have bought a new one if that's the look you want.
The vintage look is nothing new, fashion, furniture, design and architecture have been doing it for decades.
Isn't this a case of "chicks dig scars"?
I like certain watches of mine near mint and others I enjoy looked a bit rough. I've pretty much built my house with the same cheapy Seiko 5, it's been scraped, lost in cavities (steady at the back!) and it has lot's of memories for me now.
I like mint stuff, but a bit of patina once in a while is a good thing I think.
Why would you restore this? Like classic cars sometimes they're best left alone. The only thing I don't like about this watch is the shiny winder.
You're missing that it's completely fine for other people to like things that you don't.Originally Posted by Stuno1
These threads, of which there are many, are not dissimilar to walking up to someone and saying "I don't like your haircut, please explain why you do"
Last edited by verv; 26th May 2018 at 12:47.
I had pretty much that conversation with one of our engineering apprentices a few days ago...
...on the worn and patinated watch subject, l don't particularly like a watch that's too beaten up - l think that machinery should always be maintained and upgraded as necessary .
I do, however, understand the mentality of those who do like it - as humans, sentimentality is very real. Add to that the collector mentality and there's a strong market right there.
Each to their own. The only thing that l in any way actually dislike is the fake patina that some new models and re-issues have. Though, again, some people buy them.
Of course, each their own but I see a big difference in trying to buying an old watch in mint/very good condition and one which has been beaten up with “history” and touted as such as a substitute for being pristine.
Classic cars aren't often left dented, rusty or otherwise banged about.I like mint stuff, but a bit of patina once in a while is a good thing I think.
Why would you restore this? Like classic cars sometimes they're best left alone. The only thing I don't like about this watch is the shiny winder.
It’s an idicator of originality. Although watches that are a pristine and proveably original fetch the biggest bucks.
Personally, I have an old Seamaster that I bought new, so the ageing has some meaning for me. I wouldn’t be quite so wedded to someone else’s dings.
But everything’s a personal choice in this weird old hobby of ours.
- - - Updated - - -
Plenty are. They’re only original once, as the auctioneers like to remind us all.
Why worry about other people’s likes regarding condition?
Most of my watches are in good order and I’ve restored many to a nicer condition but I’ve also got a couple that some people would have a hissy fit about.
Do I care if joe bloggs doesn’t like my 62MAS because it doesn’t look like his brand new shiny, ceramic snooze’fest... err nope!
It’s kind of hard to explain what I find so attractive about heavy aging, I think it’s the fact you can see they’ve been through the wars, seen decades of sun, maybe even recovered from water damage, been gifted, handed down, loved and moved on yet they still keep chugging along as if to please you.
Also what’s the alternative? Some watches may be considered too far gone (which is what I assume we’re talking about here). What, throw them away even though they’re still charming and useful? Or maybe replace the dial for a brand new one, new bezel, case refinish... yay, now it looks like everyone else’s Watch.
My 62MAS has such charm in the metal and I know folk on this thread would want to bleach their eyes looking at pics but I love the look. I had two 62mas’ together and I got rid of the ‘nice’ one because it couldn’t hold a candle to the ‘knackered’ one in hand. Before I’d owned either, if you’d shown me pics of both and said which do you want to keep I’d have said “the ‘nice’ one obviously”.
To me a Rolex 5513 with a blueing bezel and aged lume looks a million times better than a time capsule mint 5513, and a billion times better than a new ceramic sub.
To me there is a different between aged where a watch mainly keeps its original parts but is serviced and just old and knacked.
Not pristine doesn't equate to knackered, there's a world of difference.
To clarify a little more, when I say ‘knackered’ I mean the bracelet and case display a lot of scratching. I am happy to get my watches to this point but come service time I will get them refinished to look new again. That was one of the draws of expensive watches for me. Knowing that there is always the potential to bring them back to near perfect condition.
That JLC and Tudor on SC are just knackered.
The number of times you can bring them back to near perfect in the pursuit of scratch free is finite. Eventually you end up with a soft overpolished knackered watch.
Or you may want a new one but it could simply come down to costs.
Personally I think that is utterly beautiful.I like mint stuff, but a bit of patina once in a while is a good thing I think.
Why would you restore this? Like classic cars sometimes they're best left alone. The only thing I don't like about this watch is the shiny winder.
Thanks, I've had a strap made as the old one was toast but other than that it's as I got it. Apparently if I sent it to JLC for a service it would basically come back looking like new so it never went. The chrome has come off due to the oils and stuff on your skin. Some old boy must have worn it for decades daily and I'd never want to change it.
I like to keep mine as pristine as possible. Maybe I've been very lucky but Ive managed to keep most of them that way. If I were to view any damage to a watch as a story it would definitely be a tragedy.
Last edited by Rmdf1960; 26th May 2018 at 18:38.
As with classic cars, there's a big difference between patina and a wreck.
I sometimes see watches here that are in a pitiful state and a slew of people chime in with how great it looks, so I guess it just takes all sorts :)
A bit of fade to the lume and maybe a bezel is fine to my eyes, even a few shallow scratches, but water damaged dials and unreadable bezels are just damage as far as I'm concerned.
M
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Depends on the watch. A tool watch can look good with some signs of personal use: hairlines, swirls, fading to bezel, dial and hands. I don’t really dig other people’s scars though I want it to be my own telling my story and adventures. Also original hands and dial important.
More formal watches on the other hand like dress watch or croc alligator leather strap watches etc usually look better in newer like condition.
Last edited by ac11111; 26th May 2018 at 19:41.
I fall firmly in the pristine camp.
My least favourite watch gets the most daily work wear. It’s a Tudor BB Red and shows quite a few scratches, which to me, really detract from the pleasure of ownership.
I like luxury watches due to their fine finishing. Once that’s all scuffed and marked, there’s visibly little to like.
Sadly, that's the thin veneer of luxury watches, they scratch and mark up just like the cheap stuff.
If it was a car it wouldn’t get through its mot with a windscreen like thatI like mint stuff, but a bit of patina once in a while is a good thing I think.
Why would you restore this? Like classic cars sometimes they're best left alone. The only thing I don't like about this watch is the shiny winder.
which do you prefer?
I quite like dials and markers that have aged (it's character), but I also have watches that are in as new condition.
There is a difference between ageing and being knackered though.
That’s exactly what I am referring to. The watch can easily be brought back to outstanding condition (bracelet, case and crystal) but the trend would dictate people should leave as is.which do you prefer?
If it's pre-1978 it won't need an MoT
I have a watch in my collection which has plenty of patina and for several reasons it would never be refinished.
Thanks to this I don’t feel the urge to get other watches with too much patina going on. However the slightly battered but original, untouched (at least I believe it is) case with clean edges of this KS can take me to the sixties better than anything else.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
What Verv said.
We're all different and we like different things. If you like pristine that's what you'll look for, if you prefer the worn, aged look then ditto.
I think it comes with age and watch experience, you get into watches and want all the new shiny stuff, as time goes by you appreciate the finer things and that's when the vintage watch bug hits..
If we use Rolex as an example, personally I really do not have any attraction or liking to ceramic Rolex they are just too sharp and crisp for my tastes, a simple 1980's Sub/GMT that is mostly original has far more warmth and class - in my opinion of course!
But then there is the barn find watches like 60's Sub's/GMT's/Speedmasters, I do find some of these are too far gone in condition and super delicate to enjoy but also extremely expensive especially if you add reconditioning into the price.
For the same reason I don't detail a car, treat leather shoes every other week, oil a gun after each use and so on. It just doesn't bother me and I've better things to do than worry about insignificant cosmetic wear and tear. I get a lot more pleasure in just enjoying a watch than I do looking at how shiny it is. Today I'll probably end up doing a KP shift due to the weather, my seamaster will get bashed around in the sink, get scratches from wire scouring pads, get all kinds of oil, soup, and so on all over it. Not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things, it's only a watch.
Would love to know the story on that.
To my inexpert eye, I'd say it looks like it's already had some work on the dial, but I suspect you'll tell me otherwise.
M
Radium can destruct itself after 70 years or so. I had a rather long post about its history here. Hope the link will work:
Omega Military Chronograph ref.2451 My Holy Grail
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...-My-Holy-Grail
Last edited by witti; 27th May 2018 at 11:31.
Hi Witti, what model/year is that omega, looks great.I have a watch in my collection which has plenty of patina and for several reasons it would never be refinished.
Thanks to this I don’t feel the urge to get other watches with too much patina going on. However the slightly battered but original, untouched (at least I believe it is) case with clean edges of this KS can take me to the sixties better than anything else.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Some info in the link above
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
The reason many prefer the knackered watches because from a collectors perspective refinishing the dial often involves removing the original finish. I personally find it strange. Collectors always what everything to be original but do not like too much patina on the dial etc. There are so very few watches which will have a perfect dial after 30 years so in many ways the wish for originality rules out aesthetics. I have been the same myself but beginning to think it is better to have a nice looking watch that has been refinished than a wreck that is original.
I have an old 1960 Universal Geneve that has a refinished dial and at first I was bothered but now I accept it because it is one of the most attractive watches I own.
- - - Updated - - -
The reason many prefer the knackered watches because from a collectors perspective refinishing the dial often involves removing the original finish. I personally find it strange. Collectors always what everything to be original but do not like too much patina on the dial etc. There are so very few watches which will have a perfect dial after 30 years so in many ways the wish for originality rules out aesthetics. I have been the same myself but beginning to think it is better to have a nice looking watch that has been refinished than a wreck that is original.
I have an old 1960 Universal Geneve that has a refinished dial and at first I was bothered but now I accept it because it is one of the most attractive watches I own.
This is a vintage gmt that has seen a lot of polishing to get rid of those pesky hairlines.
This is a gmt that hasn't, and has a few scratches.
Both started off new and pristine.
Only one remains in the shape that was intended when it left the factory.
I love a bit of dial patina on a vintage watch but never suscribed to the battered, dented case look, can't begin to imagine the life some of them must have had or maybe I'me too careful. This is the chamfer on an untouched 52 year old GMT, it has remained pristine for this length of time I now feel obliged to take care of it.
I am ambivalent on this subject. On one hand I have a well used PAM 49 that has travelled the world with me, and I would want it to retain those marks for ever. My work beater is a BB Bronze and in my work environment it is bound to get marks, but added to the patina developing I quite like that.
On the other hand.
If the PCLs on my GMT2 or YM2 get so much as the faintest mark, and they of course do, I get annoyed and all OCD about it.
Go figure.
Wabi Sabi - nal Japanese aesthetics, Wabi-sabi (侘寂) is a world view centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete...... You either "get it" or you don't.
Appreciate all the replies and people will clearly have preferences but I don’t understand why the trend has moved from pristine to not. If the trend moves back will all the watches that people paid heavily for that are well worn lose value? For example, the big trend looks to be fading with smaller watches coming back on trend so larger watches will get harder and harder to shift.
We tend not to refer to people like that these days.
Straps last a couple of years max but nothing an old electric tooth brush and some Fairy won’t clean up
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
I can see why serious collectors value all-original watches in the same way any collectible can be. And Rolex sport watches do look pretty damn cool with some gentle browning of the dial and lume. So I can see why the worn look is prized. But now this trend has been established, I think it is difficult to financially justify buying an example with polished lugs, service dials, relumed hands, etc. because they are seen as a less worthy investment. Especially when you consider the astronomical prices some of them attract. At the same time I've seen dealers trying to sell watches that look mucky and rotten but is sold in sales parlance as 'patina'. It's trying to sell and otherwise undesirable object by trying to convince you it's actually on trend.
I think I may have 5 pre-owned watches, all bought in surprisingly near 'pristine' condition, on the outside at least. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.
Watches are personal possessions and I look after my stuff. Whilst I'm comfortable with the evidence of my ownership, I have no inclination to wear the cast off souvenirs of strangers.
I also like second hand watches in good condition. I can easier tolerate knocks from my own wearing of a watch but not keen on inheriting other people's
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
